The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, has appealed his conviction and life sentence.
His lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, made this known via a post on his verified X handle on Wednesday.
He said, “The mother of all appeals has been filed, as Nazi Nnamdi Kanu personally appeals against his conviction/sentence today, the 4th of February 2025.”
Recall that Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court sentenced the pro-Biafra leader to life imprisonment.
However, the appeal reads partly: “On 4 February 2026, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, challenging his terrorism conviction and life sentences imposed by the Federal High Court on 20 November 2025.”
Recall that Kanu was convicted on seven terrorism-related counts, including alleged broadcasts, incitement, bomb-making directives, and unlawful importation of a radio transmitter.
Most counts attracted life imprisonment, with all sentences ordered to run concurrently.
The appeal, however, is not a routine post-conviction filing.
Although the Notice of Appeal contains 22 grounds, the defence describes it as a highly compressed legal challenge.
According to the defence team, the grounds represent the distilled outcome of an extensive review that initially identified over 1,000 procedural and legal defects, refined into 101 core infractions, and ultimately streamlined to 22 issues to comply with appellate rules and avoid prolixity.
The strategy, they say, is to present the Court of Appeal with a clear picture of cumulative systemic failure, rather than overwhelm it with volume.
The appeal challenges the trial court’s failure to address the legal consequences of the 2017 military invasion of Kanu’s home (Operation Python Dance II), which resulted in deaths and destruction.
The defence argued that Kanu’s subsequent absence from Nigeria was a compelled response to state violence, yet it was portrayed as voluntary “flight” and used to draw adverse inferences during trial.
It said the multiple grounds allege breaches of Section 36 of the Constitution, including failure to hear a pending preliminary objection, leaving a bail application undecided, and delivering judgment without allowing the defence to file a final written address.
In this article